"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/

The Onion wrote:

CLEVELAND—During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bullshit, the 38-year-old told reporters.

A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumbfuck stories.

"Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bullshit."

"Seriously," Richman added, "what have I gained from treating everyone's opinion with respect? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

[...]

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, great. Sorry I was just catching up after the weekend. Cool, apology accepted JC.

Not so oldrnwisr ... just Sarky dreaming again!!!!
Here was the exchange:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77676721&postcount=8776

J C

robindch wrote: »

http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/

Originally Posted by The Onion
CLEVELAND—During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bull****, the 38-year-old told reporters.

A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumb**** stories.

"Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bull****."

"Seriously," Richman added, "what have I gained from treating everyone's opinion with respect? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

I know the feeling!!!
... but I still think that I was right to respect the opinions of the Evolutionists on this thread nonetheless!!!!:)

Sarky

You left out the important part, where you were given about a day to provide your cfsi definition or admit there was none and apologise for wasting everyone's time. And then, because I'm generous, I offered you a second chance.

You failed twice. Nobody to blame but yourself. Trying to deny it just makes you look stupid.

But that's ok, we've accepted your apology, and we've known all along you were wasting everyone's time with your half-baked waffle, misdirection and lies. You don't need to do anything else.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Not so oldrnwisr ... just Sarky dreaming again!!!!
Here was the exchange:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77676721&postcount=8776

He isn't dreaming. He said if you can't define the CFSI nonsense you keep spouting, then you're admitting defeat.

You haven't defined it. Put up or shut up.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I know the feeling!!!
... but I still think that I was right to respect the opinions of the Evolutionists on this thread nonetheless!!!!:)

That joke got old about 6000 posts ago.

J C

RichieC wrote: »

J C Humans are Great Apes.

Some Evolutionists are ... but I find that the Creationists aren't!!!!:)

RichieC wrote: »

I like that this bugs these deniers.

The Creation Deniers are easily bugged allright!!!!:)

Delirium

@JC have you anything credible to support creationism, as CFSI can be dismissed based on the information in the wiki that was linked to earlier today.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Some Evolutionists are ... but I find that the Creationists aren't!!!!:)

The Creation Deniers are easily bugged allright!!!!:)

Really old now.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He isn't dreaming. He said if you can't define the CFSI nonsense you keep spouting, then you're admitting defeat.

You haven't defined it. Put up or shut up.

Which part of 'Complex Functional Specified Information' do you not understand?

Sarky

Which part of "that's a sh*tty definition and you need to do better" do YOU not understand?

Are you now pretending that you HAVEN'T failed miserably at providing a robust definition? Because I'd you haven't noticed, you failed miserably. I gave you two chances and a generous time limit, and you failed both times.

As far as science, logic, common sense and honesty go, you're a failure, J C, and you have nobody left to blame.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Which part of 'Complex Functional Specified Information' do you not understand?

You've had this explained to you 1000 times. We aren't asking you to explain the words, we're asking you what it means in a scientific sense.

Delirium

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You've had this explained to you 1000 times. We aren't asking you to explain the words, we're asking you what it means in a scientific sense.

have a read of the wiki page about it

another bit of text from the page.

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

and

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[24] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

Sarky

J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page. Neither, it can be noted, did Dembski, the man you came up with it. If Dembski failed at it, I have no idea how a failed scientist like J C could think he'd fare any better.

Delirium

Sarky wrote: »

J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page. Neither, it can be noted, did Dembski, the man you came up with it. If Dembski failed at it, I have no idea how a failed scientist like J C could think he'd fare any better.

That's why I'm curious to see if JC hanging on by the fingernails to CFSI as there is nothing else to hold onto in support of creationism.

Sarky

You don't think he'd go back on his explicit admission of fault and his unreserved apology, do you? That would be pretty low.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

No, nor was my statement anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting. Another strawman.

To recap - If you accept that a chimp and an orangutan are both apes (which you do) - And also accept that chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans (which you do) - Then it makes perfect sense to classify humans as apes.

I don't accept that Chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans ... you can get an individual sequences that fits your description ... but other ones that don't ... and the same is true across the Animal Kingdom.

Like I have already said, just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... this doesn't make you are an Elephant ... or a Crocodile

dlofnep wrote: »

Out of curiosity J C - Do you accept that other apes shared a common ancestor? Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans...?

It's thought that Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans are separate Kinds

Chimpanzees are blood group A, minimal O, never B.
Gorillas are blood group B, minimal O, but never A.
Humans are predominantly O, but also have A and B. The AB blood group is entirely missing in both Chimpanzees and Gorillas - and only Humans have it.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a biological fact that we are apes. I'm not the only one saying it I'm afraid. World renowned biologists agree. But I suppose you know better, right?

Humans are no more Apes than Lemurs or Meerkats are Apes.
Humans are a separate and special Creation of God ... and that is why we will never see Chimps driving cars or arguing about Evolution on the Boards.ie.
You even agree that we are radically different....

dlofnep wrote: »

I agree that humans are radically different, all perfectly explainable by the theory of evolution. And we can see that radical change occurring all the way from homo habilis right up to modern homo sapiens.

dlofnep wrote: »

We've presented you with evidence, but you insulted those who presented it by ignoring it.

Ye didn't actually present any evidence.

J C

koth wrote: »

From the wiki about CFSI, which had to be provided by Barr125 and not JC.
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology

Specified Complexity is an obvious fact. All Human language and meaningful writing is specified complex information ... as is the genetic information stored in DNA.

koth wrote: »

Quote:
Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."

... Its the additional requirement of specificity for functional information that makes the non-intelligently directed generation of CFSI a mathematical impossibility.
Any old series of numbers drawn will be the 'winning numbers' in a Lottery ... but functional living systems requires highly specific series of biomolecules to produce functional living systems and processes. Its the equivalent of saying that any draw other than 3, 5, 12, 18, 19 and 25 will be invalid in the Lottery next Saturday night and a different specific sequence will be required to win the following Saturday night ... and a prize will only be awarded to people who have 10 winning tickets in a row!!

Sarky

You've ignored everything to repost the same shoddy crap again. Is there something wrong with you? Apart from your previous total failures, I mean?

cowzerp

JC fair play to you for admitting defeat and not backing up the cfsi question.

It takes a big man to accept he was wrong.

J C

koth wrote: »

have a read of the wiki page about it

another bit of text from the page.
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities.

Long on Ad Hominem generalities ... but very short on specifics and evidence.

koth wrote: »

According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

The production of a few specific sequences in a required specific cascade is mathematically impossible ... so forget about it when it comes to the eye ... with thousands of these highly specified biomolecular systems.

koth wrote: »

Quote:
Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.

Doesn't tell us how this was achieved. Removing one gene that controls sugar digestion isn't proof of anything if there are several other intelligently designed back-up genes or auto-correction / redundancy mechanisms present.

koth wrote: »

Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

Breaking down something requires relatively low levels of CFSI ... simple fire and other oxidising processes can destroy very complex artefacts and systems ... but creating them is another matter entirely.

J C

cowzerp wrote: »

JC fair play to you for admitting defeat and not backing up the cfsi question.

It takes a big man to accept he was wrong.

You should try it some time!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Long on Ad Hominem generalities ... but very short on specifics and evidence.

For the love of Spongebob, would you please look up the definition of Ad Hominem so that you might use it at least once in the way it's meant to be used.

The production of a few specific sequences in a required specific sequence is mathematically impossible ... so forget about it when it comes to the eye ... with thousands of these highly specified biomolecular systems.

Only when viewed through the prism of creationism as you have to re-enforce the idea that an eye can't be created naturally without a creator.

You're presuming that evolution had the modern human in mind when the first mutations began in the simplest organisms. That simply isn't the case.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page.

Done!!!

Sarky wrote: »

Neither, it can be noted, did Dembski, the man you came up with it. If Dembski failed at it, I have no idea how a failed scientist like J C could think he'd fare any better.

... So I'm a 'failed scientist' now ... I suppose it's progress from saying that I'm not a scientist.:(

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I don't accept that Chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans ... you can get an individual sequences that fits your description ... but other ones that don't ... and the same is true across the Animal Kingdom.

Why don't you accept it?

Like I have already said, just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... this doesn't make you are an Elephant ... or a Crocodile

Thats a fair point. Unfortunately for you, it might be relevant if anyone was claiming we are chimps. No one is claiming this. What we are claiming is that humans and chimps are both apes.
Yes, we are biologically more like an elephant than a crocodile. And of course that doesn't make us elephants. It does, however, mean both us and elephants are mammals. Just like humans and chimps are both apes.

It's thought that Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans are separate Kinds

Chimpanzees are blood group A, minimal O, never B.
Gorillas are blood group B, minimal O, but never A.
Humans are predominantly O, but also have A and B. The AB blood group is entirely missing in both Chimpanzees and Gorillas - and only Humans have it.

Why exactly is it thought that all apes are seperate kinds, while all big cats are the same kind? It wouldn't be because if we were accepting all the apes as one kind we'd also have to include humans would it? Becuase that would just be dishonest, and we all know you aren't dishonest J C.

Humans are no more Apes than Lemurs or Meerkats are Apes.
Humans are a separate and special Creation of God ... and that is why we will never see Chimps driving cars or arguing about Evolution on the Boards.ie.

READ A BOOK ON EVOLUTION.

Ye didn't actually present any evidence.

Apart form all of the evidence? Yeah good point.

J C wrote: »

Specified Complexity is an obvious factvery vauge nonsense term. All Human language and meaningful writing is specified complex information ... as is the genetic information stored in DNA.

I don't understand how you can scientifically say DNA is the same as writing.

... Its the additional requirement of specificity for functional information that makes the non-intelligently directed generation of CFSI a mathematical impossibility.
Any old series of numbers drawn will be the 'winning numbers' in a Lottery ... but functional living systems requires highly specific series of biomolecules to produce functional living systems and processes. Its the equivalent of saying that any draw other than 3, 5, 12, 18, 19 and 25 will be invalid in the Lottery next Saturday night and a different specific sequence will be required to win the following Saturday night ... and a prize will only be awarded to people who have 10 winning tickets in a row!!

There is absolutely nothing relevant in that paragraph. You'd have been as well writing an essay on donkeys.

J C

koth wrote: »

Only when viewed through the prism of creationism as you have to re-enforce the idea that an eye can't be created naturally without a creator.

You're presuming that evolution had the modern human in mind when the first mutations began in the simplest organisms. That simply isn't the case.

I'm just wondering how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI:eek:
Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

Sarky

You're still trying to push cfsi despite the fact that you can't define it in any useful way.

And despite the fact that when faced with the option of providing such a definition or admitting defeat, you chose defeat. Remember that; You chose defeat. Oh, and despite Dembski being shown as a lying scumbag. We get the point. You're dishonest and unrepentant about it. We knew that years ago.

And Christ on a bike, the eye thing has been covered so many times in this thread already. So you lied about reading every post, and you lied about understanding the ones you DID read. You FAILED, J C. You have admitted as much. Get over it. This latest bout of whining is just pathetic, even by your usual rock-bottom standards.

Delirium

CFSI isn't a biological property so it can't be destroyed, never mind that it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It's a failed attempt by a creationist to try and resolve the bible with the natural world.

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

I'm just wondering how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI:eek:
Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

Um...you are preaching to the wrong crowd here - the eye one has been done to death and very convincing explanations have been put forward. Try here for a start.

Try the eye one on a less knowledgeable audience. I'm sure Jesus approves of lying and manipulation if it's for the 'right' reasons.

dlofnep

Where does CFSI come into the wings of a Kiwi?